Delhi HC issues notice to NIA in plea by Terrorist Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed seeking sentences to run concurrently in two cases

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a plea filed by terrorist Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed convicted by Special Court (NIA, POTA, MCOCA) of Greater Bombay, for the Malvani ISIS case on charges of trying to “radicalize Muslim Youths to join the Islamic State terror group in India Shafi Armar @ Yusuf-Al-Hindi”.

Sayyed was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment under Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He was arrested by the NIA in 2016. The agency’s investigation revealed that he along with another accused had instigated, intimidated, and influenced vulnerable Muslim youth from the Malwani area in Mumbai’s Malad, West, and compelled them to become “Fidayeen Fighters” for the cause of Islam. He was also instrumental in sending youths for “Hijarat” for joining ISIS.

Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed was also convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court, Delhi on June 2, 2022, for conspiracy to carry out a terror strike during the Ardh Kumbh Mela at Haridwar. In that case, he was sentenced under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, UAPA, and the Explosive Substances Act.

During the hearing, Advocate Siddharth Suneel appearing for Sayyed contended that “I am not impugning the special court’s order. The fact of my previous conviction was not placed before the special court. I am seeking the High Court to invoke its power under Section 226 to do that which is not prohibited under the NIA Act. I am not challenging the mode it should be given in.”

He contended that the trial court while ordering sentence and conviction in Sayyed’s case had become “functus officio” (court has no further official authority or legal effect), thus he could not have approached it on this point. He said, “Once a trial court has exercised the power of sentence, it becomes functus officio”.

Sayyed had a limited prayer that the sentences imposed by the Bombay Court and Delhi Court be run concurrently.

On the contrary, the counsel for the NIA opposed the plea stating that it is not maintainable under Section 21 of the NIA Act, which mandates that an appeal from an order or judgment other than an interlocutory order shall be heard by a division bench of the High Court.

To this, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said, “It is not an appeal. It is not that ex-facie it is not maintainable. He may have to answer on Section 427 CrPC.”

Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench sought NIA’s response to the plea within six weeks. Accordingly, the court listed the matter for further hearing on May 23.

Case Title: Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed v. NIA

Statue: The Indian Penal Code; The Code of Criminal Procedure; The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substances Act.